US Proposes First Reduction in Ethanol Mandate

For the first time in the history of its program to promote biofuel as a replacement for petroleum-based fuels, the U.S. government proposed Friday to reduce the amount of ethanol that is required to be added to the nation’s gasoline supply.

The move by the world’s No. 1 producer and consumer of biofuel reflects profound changes underway in U.S. driving habits and vehicle fuel efficiency, as well as concerns that the nation’s tightly intertwined food and fuel systems are maxing out on their ability to burn more corn-based alcohol for transportation. Americans are driving less and cars on the highways are more efficient than Congress anticipated when it created the renewable fuels mandate in 2005. (Take a quiz: “What You Don’t Know About Biofuel.”)

Nearly all the gasoline sold in the United States is now “E10,” gasoline mixed with up to 10 percent ethanol. The majority of the cars on the U.S. market are not designed to run on large amounts of ethanol (even though the technology for “flex-fuel vehicles” is simple and inexpensive.)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved 15 percent ethanol blends for cars manufactured after 2001, but that hasn’t been a solution to the so-called “blend wall” problem, since few filling stations carry the higher blend and worries about the potential for “misfueling” errors abound. In its new proposal, the EPA said it is seeking input on what steps it can take “to help overcome current market challenges” and minimize the need to reduce the ethanol mandate further in the future. But for now, the agency is proposing to set the 2014 requirement at 15 billion to 15.52 billion gallons, close to what the mandate was last year. That marks about a 6 percent reduction from this year’s mandate, and is about 15 percent below what the mandate had been scheduled to reach by 2014. (See related story: “Drought Withers U.S. Corn Crop, Heats Debate on Ethanol.”

The EPA attempted to craft a compromise amid ferocious lobbying over the so-called Renewable Fuels Standard, an onslaught that is not likely to abate. The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, representing oil refiners, said EPA’s recognition of the blend wall problem was a “welcome step,” but signaled it would continue to urge Congress to undo the “unworkable law.” A leading group for ethanol producers, the Renewable Fuels Association, said that the costs that the program was imposing on refiners was a sign that the program was having an impact in unseating oil’s monopoly on transportation: “Now is not the time to depressurize the program,” the group said. (See related blog post: “Why the New Biofuel Feedstocks Deserve Investment, Incentives.”)

Meanwhile, even though the EPA made last-minute changes to the proposal to reduce the potential cuts to “advanced” biofuels–those not made from corn–the Biotechnology Industry Organization said the proposed ethanol reductions “could significantly chill investments in advanced biofuels projects,” and the group said it would work for further changes to the plan. (Vote and comment: “Are Biofuels Worth the Investment?“)

Hurray, biofuels are an abomination! They are an environmental disaster, besides being immoral in a world where plenty of people still go hungry.It’s laughable to talk about it displacing petroleum. If we stopped eating and turned every bit of corn into ethanol it would produce less than 20% of the gasoline burned in cars.This goes on year after year after year because of 1) stupidity, and 2) the fact that the Iowa caucus is the beginning of the Presidential campaign.

It is probably a necessary change, but for none of the reasons you or the comment crowd describe.The US gov (Google it) biofuels web site lists 4 types of biofuels; only 1 being corn ethanol. Yet they advocate growth in more serious efforts for the other 3 types.Of course the corn lobby now has a monopoly to protect along with the oil industry, and we again get nowhere and do nothing as intended.Personally, I don’t waste time listening to the song and dance anymore. If you want to run your car on batteries or moon rocks while serious science emerges around the world, go ahead. I was just brought up to serve my country in need, but that has really gotten dated, too. I’m just glad others once cared enough to encourage serious alternatives to bankruptcy, wars, and climate decline.

Marianne,It is about time the EPA stops setting ideology-driven, aspirational goals for blending corn ethanol that are clearly grossly excessive, as gasoline consumption has been declining since about 2007 and will be declining to about 110 billion gallons per year by 2025, due to implementing the new CAFE standards and increased use of hybrid and all-electric vehicles. At present, E10 requires enough corn ethanol that an area equivalent to about the State of Louisiana is required for cropping. The corn to ethanol program is an expensive, heavily-subsidized, make-work program for the agricultural-industrial complex. Its net CO2 reduction is near zero, if evaluated on an A to Z basis.The below article does all that and more.http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/287061/us-corn-ethanol-program